False R>F

[Thanganimator]

This thread has been approved by ActuallySpaceMan42.

Basically, I want to discuss an unofficial term called "False R>F," which has essentially been mentioned here, here, and also here. In short, when a character with R>F has the previously mentioned anti-feats, they will no longer qualify for a Tier 1-A rating, but they still qualify for a quantitative transcendence of +1D over the lower reality. Therefore, I'd like to propose adding this term to the "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" page. It would look something like this:

False R>F
Characters with "Reality-Fiction Transcendence" who exhibit the aforementioned anti-feats will be placed into this category. In this case, while the characters do not meet the criteria to be rated as 1-A, their reality is still fundamentally a higher dimension, granting them a +1D tiering advantage over the lower reality beneath them.

Of course, I'm not the best at explaining, so the above is just a simplified explanation, and the name can also be changed to fit our wiki's standards better.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Gotta expand on which anti-feats are aforementioned. Also maybe try to formulate it without the term "anti-feats" for an official page. I think "Quantitative R>F" or similar would also work better than "false" for the name, if we give it a name.

 

[Thanganimator]

Gotta expand on which anti-feats are aforementioned. Also maybe try to formulate it without the term "anti-feats" for an official page. I think "Quantitative R>F" or similar would also work better than "false" for the name, if we give it a name.

"Quantitative R>F" sounds fine. As for the explanation, do you have a better explanation than the one I provided?

 

[Antvasima]

I am not opposed to the idea in itself, but I did not see you provide any explanation for the disqualifying factors.

 

[Thanganimator]

I am not opposed to the idea in itself, but I did not see you provide any explanation for the disqualifying factors.

Mainly because I'm not very familiar with suggesting glossary pages since this is my first time creating a staff thread, what should the disqualifications include?

 

[Antvasima]

Well, being a purely physical being rather than a transcendent one seem reasonable.

 

[Thanganimator]

Well, being a purely physical being rather than a transcendent one seem reasonable.

That makes sense. Also, as far as I know, a character in the lower reality influencing the upper reality without a power source from that reality would be considered an anti-feat. So to expand on the disqualifying factors (or anti-feats), we could include cases where:

• The higher-reality character is a purely physical being rather than a transcendent one.

• A character from the lower reality is somehow able to interact with, affect, or harm the higher reality, proving the gap isn't qualitatively absolute.

Since I'm not an expert on the nuances of Reality-Fiction Transcendence, I'd like to ask for more input. Could we tag some of the staff members or knowledgeable members who specialize in Tiering System and R>F to help refine this?

 

[Antvasima]

That makes sense. Also, as far as I know, a character in the lower reality influencing the upper reality without a power source from that reality would be considered an anti-feat. So to expand on the disqualifying factors (or anti-feats), we could include cases where:

• The higher-reality character is a purely physical being rather than a transcendent one.

• A character from the lower reality is somehow able to interact with, affect, or harm the higher reality, proving the gap isn't qualitatively absolute.

Since I'm not an expert on the nuances of Reality-Fiction Transcendence, I'd like to ask for more input. Could we tag some of the staff members or knowledgeable members who specialize in Tiering System and R>F to help refine this?

@Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0 @Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @Ovy7 @IdiosyncraticLawyer @GrathOfLux @Udlmaster @FinePoint @SamanPatou @ActuallySpaceMan42

 

[Planck69]

Well, being a purely physical being rather than a transcendent one seem reasonable.

Small correction but you can be physical within the layer of reality that you exist in, while still outright holding a proper reality-fiction transcendence over a lower plane.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I would go with something like this, in a separate section under Qualifiers.

Not every case that resembles Reality-Fiction Transcendence will qualify as a genuine Reality-Fiction gap. However, failing to qualify as Reality-Fiction Transcendence does not necessarily mean that the showing has no tiering relevance. In some cases, the same evidence may still support a different kind of superiority, provided that the verse gives sufficient context for a genuine structural, quantitative, or dimensional difference rather than merely using reality-fiction language as a metaphor.

For instance, if an entire lower space-time continuum is contained within the pages of a book, a screen, a painting, or another medium in a higher reality, but the lower world is still shown to possess tangible existence relative to that higher reality, then this would not be true Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Nevertheless, the showing may still be evaluated under other tiering standards if the higher reality’s relationship to the lower one demonstrates more than simple containment, size difference, or perspective.

Examples may include the lower reality being consistently treated as infinitesimal, or spatially inferior structure; the higher realm encompassing the lower continuum in a way that implies an uncountably infinite or otherwise quantitative difference; or the lower world functioning as a physically embedded subset or cross-section the higher world. Likewise, a character viewing lower beings, objects, universes, or space-time structures as flat, paper-like, screen-like, two-dimensional, or otherwise negligible in comparison to themselves can be relevant evidence if the portrayal is literal and consistent.

That said, such cases should be evaluated carefully. A failed Reality-Fiction Transcendence claim should not be upgraded by default. Merely being weaker, smaller, contained or viewed through a medium, or called “less real” is not enough. Likewise, statements that something is a “higher plane,” “higher world,” “more real,” “outside the story,” or “beyond space-time” are insufficient on their own unless supported by context showing what kind of superiority is actually being described.

 

[Thanganimator]

I would go with something like this, in a separate section under Qualifiers.

This presentation is very good to me. Additionally, could we add examples for these "False R>F" cases?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

This presentation is very good to me. Additionally, could we add examples for these "False R>F" cases?

Sure, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

 

[Thanganimator]

Sure, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.

My suggestion is "Player" from Imscared game which doesn't qualify for 1A because the lower-level reality can affect the upper-level reality, but still qualifies for "False R>F" as discussed in this CRT. That's the only character I can think of.

 

[Uradial50]

I feel like vsbattle should mention the existence of "false R>F" or known as "Quantitative R>F", in their own FAQ.

 

[Thanganimator]

I feel like vsbattle should mention the existence of "false R>F" or known as "Quantitative R>F", in their own FAQ.

Sorry, but you need staff permission to comment here. But yeah, you have a point

 

[Antvasima]

I would go with something like this, in a separate section under Qualifiers.

Thank you. It seems good to me at least, but I am not the best person to ask.

 

[FinePoint]

I would go with something like this, in a separate section under Qualifiers.

I think this addition is good overall (though I'm sure there's specific improvements that can be made).

 

[Thanganimator]

I think this addition is good.

In addition, what character examples can you think of for this "False R>F" case, besides the "Player" character I mentioned?

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Have some thoughts on this. I'll give my two cents this Monday (busy tomorrow).

 

[Thanganimator]

Thank you. It seems good to me at least, but I am not the best person to ask.

How many staff members will need to agree to implement this change, Ant?

 

[Thanganimator]

Have some thoughts on this. I'll give my two cents this Monday (busy tomorrow).

OMG, THE GOAT OF VSBW APPEARED ON MY THREAD!

Of course, I can wait.

 

[FinePoint]

In addition, what character examples can you think of for this "False R>F" case, besides the "Player" character I mentioned?

Well there's cases in the equalization page listed like Monika where apparently the virtual world is parallel to the real one. I don't know if that's accurate, but I'm sure there's other examples along those lines too.

 

[Thanganimator]

Well there's cases in the equalization page listed like Monika where apparently the virtual world is parallel to the real one. I don't know if that's accurate, but I'm sure there's other examples along those lines too.

Monika's problem is that her world is a real universe, but for the other universe, aka "we", are code or something similar.

 

[FinePoint]

Monika's problem is that her world is a real universe, but for the other universe, aka "we", are code or something similar.

Yes, and that would be a scenario where it's not real R>F despite the initial impression you'd get from the premise, so it should work as one example.

 

[RaikiKurohane99]

I also agree with the thread. But I would like to add a few more examples for false R>F

First off, cases where while the higher realm is described as seeing the lower realm as fictional, it is still reachable by a quantitative increase in power or size. Or if the residences of the higher realm can enter the lower realm explicitly by reducing their size, rather than an ontological reduction.

This example came to mind while I was reading this CRT and how their verse treats higher dimensions.

As for a proper wording, something along the lines of:

Another example of when a false Reality-Fiction Transcendence is qualifiable is when a setting may show some qualifiers for a supposed transcendence, but there exists evidence contrary to what we define as a valid transcendence. This includes showings where, while the higher reality is portrayed as "more real", lesser beings can still reach the higher realm simply by a quantitative increase in size or power.

That said, I also noticed a problem with the proposed wording:

That said, such cases should be evaluated carefully. A failed Reality-Fiction Transcendence claim should not be upgraded by default. Merely being weaker, smaller, contained or viewed through a medium, or called “less real” is not enough. Likewise, statements that something is a “higher plane,” “higher world,” “more real,” “outside the story,” or “beyond space-time” are insufficient on their own unless supported by context showing what kind of superiority is actually being described.

Our current page specifically lists this type of statement as a valid qualifier. So do you also wish to change that as a whole and remove it from being a qualifier?

In general, such cases can be relatively straightforward, as in cosmologies where conventional reality is portrayed as "not really real," and there are superior, "more real" worlds beyond it. If, on top of that, the higher world is depicted as being one that is inhabited by literal readers, authors and consumers of media, and not simply cosmic beings taking the metaphorical appearance of such (Take this article's image as reference),[note 2] then that is substantial evidence for a Reality-Fiction Transcendence, in particular if the higher plane demonstrably has its own set of dimensions, so that it is impossible for it and the lower world to be related to each other by dimensional differences.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that idea if that were to be the case, for now, it's just a question.

 

[Thanganimator]

I also agree with the thread. But I would like to add a few more examples for false R>F

First off, cases where while the higher realm is described as seeing the lower realm as fictional, it is still reachable by a quantitative increase in power or size. Or if the residences of the higher realm can enter the lower realm explicitly by reducing their size, rather than an ontological reduction.

This example came to mind while I was reading this CRT and how their verse treats higher dimensions.

I understand now. If a verse describes a higher dimension of space and views the lower dimension as a two-dimensional cross-section, then the verse would completely fail to qualify for qualitative transcendence because it would have transformed into quantitative transcendence. This case should also be clarified. So I suggest adding this:

"If a verse possesses both quantitative mathematical properties (e.g., being infinitely large, uncountable lower reality, or considering lower reality as a 2-dimensional plane) and transcendental qualitative properties (e.g., considering lower reality as merely a stream of thought, or a page of a book), then it will not qualify for transcendental qualitativeness and will not have the standard 'R>F'."

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

That said, I also noticed a problem with the proposed wording:

Our current page specifically lists this type of statement as a valid qualifier. So do you also wish to change that as a whole and remove it from being a qualifier?

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with that idea if that were to be the case, for now, it's just a question.

What I meant is that, once the R>F gap has already been invalidated, statements like “more real” cannot be used by themselves to justify an unconditional higher-tier or dimensional leap. At that point, the claim has already been proven either false, flowery, or metaphoric. So, unless there's some other context, “more real” alone would not be enough.

I can remove it if it'll cause too much confusion, though.

 

[Thanganimator]

What I meant is that, once the R>F gap has already been invalidated, statements like “more real” cannot be used by themselves to justify an unconditional higher-tier or dimensional leap. At that point, the claim has already been proven either false, flowery, or metaphoric. So, unless there's some other context, “more real” alone would not be enough.

I can remove it if it'll cause too much confusion, though.

Now, if there's nothing more to discuss, I think we'll have to wait until Monday to see what Ultima has to say, but what do you think about this?

I understand now. If a verse describes a higher dimension of space and views the lower dimension as a two-dimensional cross-section, then the verse would completely fail to qualify for qualitative transcendence because it would have transformed into quantitative transcendence. This case should also be clarified. So I suggest adding this:

"If a verse possesses both quantitative mathematical properties (e.g., being infinitely large, uncountable lower reality, or considering lower reality as a 2-dimensional plane) and transcendental qualitative properties (e.g., considering lower reality as merely a stream of thought, or a page of a book), then it will not qualify for transcendental qualitativeness and will not have the standard 'R>F'."

 

[RaikiKurohane99]

I understand now. If a verse describes a higher dimension of space and views the lower dimension as a two-dimensional cross-section, then the verse would completely fail to qualify for qualitative transcendence because it would have transformed into quantitative transcendence. This case should also be clarified. So I suggest adding this:

"If a verse possesses both quantitative mathematical properties (e.g., being infinitely large, uncountable lower reality, or considering lower reality as a 2-dimensional plane) and transcendental qualitative properties (e.g., considering lower reality as merely a stream of thought, or a page of a book), then it will not qualify for transcendental qualitativeness and will not have the standard 'R>F'."

Yes, that's the gist of it.

If a verse possesses both quantitative mathematical properties (e.g., being larger than the lower reality by an uncountable infinite degree, or perceiving the lower reality as a 2-dimensional plane) and transcendental qualitative properties (e.g., considering the lower realm as fictional, less real, etc.), then due to the conflicting nature of these statements, they would not be able to qualify for a proper Reality-Fiction transcendence.

What I meant is that, once the R>F gap has already been invalidated, statements like “more real” cannot be used by themselves to justify an unconditional higher-tier or dimensional leap. At that point, the claim has already been proven either false, flowery, or metaphoric. So, unless there's some other context, “more real” alone would not be enough.

I can remove it if it'll cause too much confusion, though.

Ah, then it's fine. I misunderstood you.

And no, if it was in that sense, then there's no need for removal. But I think adding a small extra clarification wouldn't hurt:

That said, such cases should be evaluated carefully. A failed Reality-Fiction Transcendence claim should not be upgraded by default. Merely being weaker, smaller, contained or viewed through a fictional medium, or called “less real” is not enough if it has evidence contrary to those claims simultaneously. Likewise, statements that something is a “higher plane,” “higher world,” “more real,” “outside the story,” or “beyond space-time” are insufficient on their own unless supported by context showing what kind of superiority is actually being described, and thus should not unconditionally grant any kind of superiority in the face of evidence contrary to the premise of such transcendence.

Other than that, I think your wording is already well done.

 

[Thanganimator]

Yes, that's the gist of it.

That means a lot of verses will be downgraded after this revision.

 

[RaikiKurohane99]

That means a lot of verses will be downgraded after this revision.

Maybe

 

[Udlmaster]

This example came to mind while I was reading this CRT and how their verse treats higher dimensions.

That thread was a mess frankly. People kept interjecting with misleading or wrong information, especially since I'd gone to Ultima before hand too about the verse and he'd also agreed about it being 1-A.

Alas...

What I meant is that, once the R>F gap has already been invalidated, statements like “more real” cannot be used by themselves to justify an unconditional higher-tier or dimensional leap. At that point, the claim has already been proven either false, flowery, or metaphoric. So, unless there's some other context, “more real” alone would not be enough.

I agree to a certain extent, but many characters who are R>F often are statement exclusive. (If I take your meaning correctly) I don't think "feats > statements" should be the important part here, I imagine a more context basis where the story clearly portrays said characters as having superior ontological existences.

Likewise, I don't think the cliché of "flowery language" should be applied without contextual backing (Meaning, if you make the claim, you have to back it up with something more than conjecture). If a series doesn't have a history of poetic language that is not illustrative of what is actually happening, then I don't think we should use it automatically.

I.E the difference of someone describing a person or situation vs the title card of a chapter, episode, etc.

For the description (this: )

Not every case that resembles Reality-Fiction Transcendence will qualify as a genuine Reality-Fiction gap. However, failing to qualify as Reality-Fiction Transcendence does not necessarily mean that the showing has no tiering relevance. In some cases, the same evidence may still support a different kind of superiority, provided that the verse gives sufficient context for a genuine structural, quantitative, or dimensional difference rather than merely using reality-fiction language as a metaphor.

For instance, if an entire lower space-time continuum is contained within the pages of a book, a screen, a painting, or another medium in a higher reality, but the lower world is still shown to possess tangible existence relative to that higher reality, then this would not be true Reality-Fiction Transcendence. Nevertheless, the showing may still be evaluated under other tiering standards if the higher reality’s relationship to the lower one demonstrates more than simple containment, size difference, or perspective.

Examples may include the lower reality being consistently treated as infinitesimal, or spatially inferior structure; the higher realm encompassing the lower continuum in a way that implies an uncountably infinite or otherwise quantitative difference; or the lower world functioning as a physically embedded subset or cross-section the higher world. Likewise, a character viewing lower beings, objects, universes, or space-time structures as flat, paper-like, screen-like, two-dimensional, or otherwise negligible in comparison to themselves can be relevant evidence if the portrayal is literal and consistent.

That said, such cases should be evaluated carefully. A failed Reality-Fiction Transcendence claim should not be upgraded by default. Merely being weaker, smaller, contained or viewed through a medium, or called “less real” is not enough. Likewise, statements that something is a “higher plane,” “higher world,” “more real,” “outside the story,” or “beyond space-time” are insufficient on their own unless supported by context showing what kind of superiority is actually being described.

I think we should discuss it in positive terms (I.E what makes something R>F) as well as negative terms (what is isn't). Something like:

For something to qualify for Reality-Fiction transcendence it must be established within the series as ontologically superior to another, such that the lower reality is treated as if it were fiction. In these cases, the higher reality is not merely larger, stronger, older or more spatially expansive but instead is fundamentally superior such that no constituent parts of the lower reality can equate the higher reality.

The ways in which this can be demonstrated by the lower reality being treated as (though not limited to) a fictional setting, simulation, dream, drawing, or other authored medium while the Higher reality is treated as the "real" world by comparison. The key factor here is that the lower world is not merely contained or within the higher one but is ontologically dependent upon, subordinate to or fictional from the perspective of said Higher reality.

Key supporting evidence for true Reality-Fiction transcendence may include characters editing, rewriting, observing and or interacting with the lower world as a narrative project or created work or is otherwise governed by beings and entities from the Higher World (or simply the Higher World) by an author, reader, player or other external viewer. Likewise, if beings from the higher level can treat entire lower continuums, histories, characters, and cosmologies as mere fictional content, this may support a genuine reality-fiction distinction.

Then insert what isn't R>F afterwards or any edits you like.

I believe it will chiefly be important in allowing us to have a clear structure to measure verses against. As I've noticed that many people struggle to engage in the ontological tiers all together due to how vague and confusing the standards can sometimes appear to be.

I think as well as making people less dependant on certain people appearing in threads just to have the thread be stonewalled until they reply will always be for the better.

 

[Thanganimator]

That thread was a mess frankly. People kept interjecting with misleading or wrong information, especially since I'd gone to Ultima before hand too about the verse and he'd also agreed about it being 1-A.

Alas...

I agree to a certain extent, but many characters who are R>F often are statement exclusive. (If I take your meaning correctly) I don't think "feats > statements" should be the important part here, I imagine a more context basis where the story clearly portrays said characters as having superior ontological existences.

Likewise, I don't think the cliché of "flowery language" should be applied without contextual backing (Meaning, if you make the claim, you have to back it up with something more than conjecture). If a series doesn't have a history of poetic language that is not illustrative of what is actually happening, then I don't think we should use it automatically.

I.E the difference of someone describing a person or situation vs the title card of a chapter, episode, etc.

For the description (this: )


I think we should discuss it in positive terms (I.E what makes something R>F) as well as negative terms (what is isn't). Something like:


Then insert what isn't R>F afterwards or any edits you like.

I believe it will chiefly be important in allowing us to have a clear structure to measure verses against. As I've noticed that many people struggle to engage in the ontological tiers all together due to how vague and confusing the standards can sometimes appear to be.

I think as well as making people less dependant on certain people appearing in threads just to have the thread be stonewalled until they reply will always be for the better.

Excuse me, but have any staff members given you permission to comment?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Excuse me, but have any staff members given you permission to comment?

Ant @ him

 

[Thanganimator]

Ant @ him

Oh okay

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I agree to a certain extent, but many characters who are R>F often are statement exclusive. (If I take your meaning correctly) I don't think "feats > statements" should be the important part here, I imagine a more context basis where the story clearly portrays said characters as having superior ontological existences.

Likewise, I don't think the cliché of "flowery language" should be applied without contextual backing (Meaning, if you make the claim, you have to back it up with something more than conjecture). If a series doesn't have a history of poetic language that is not illustrative of what is actually happening, then I don't think we should use it automatically.

I saw what I wrote as being in reference to something that has already been rejected. If something that would typically be a statement or feat befitting R > F has already been refuted as a false R > F difference, then I felt describing it as false, flowery, or metaphorical covered all the potential bases.

I think we should discuss it in positive terms (I.E what makes something R>F) as well as negative terms (what is isn't). Something like:

My idea was that we put it on the Reality-Fiction Transcendence page, which already has a qualifiers section. I feel like going over what qualifies as Reality-Fiction a second time on the same page, after an entire section has already covered that, would be a bit redundant.

Especially since this section would focus on why a false R > F difference may or may not qualify as some level of qualitative or dimensional transcendence as well, hence my focus on examples such as embedment, cross-sections, being viewed as infinitesimal or 2-D, and so on.

 

[Udlmaster]

I saw what I wrote as being in reference to something that has already been rejected

I see, I see.

I merely worry about the use of "flowery language" and the like being used as a cudgel.

My idea was that we put it on the Reality-Fiction Transcendence page, which already has a qualifiers section. I feel like going over what qualifies as Reality-Fiction a second time on the same page, after an entire section has already covered that, would be a bit redundant.

I feel it could resolve people being potentially confused if we put a bit extra next to it. The Reality-Fiction transcendence page is decently large by itself so having the relevant parts already there next to it I believe would be useful for readers and for keeping things user friendly.

 

[Thanganimator]

I feel it could resolve people being potentially confused if we put a bit extra next to it. The Reality-Fiction transcendence page is decently large by itself so having the relevant parts already there next to it I believe would be useful for readers and for keeping things user friendly.

I completely agree with Udlmaster's approach here. Comparing True R>F (Positive terms) and False/Quantitative R>F (Negative terms) in a structured manner is absolutely necessary for the community to better understand these concepts.

To address SpaceMan42's concern about redundancy, we can format this new section as a "Comparative Clarification" right after the current Qualifiers.

By explicitly contrasting what is a genuine ontological dependence (True R>F) versus what is merely a dimensional/mathematical gap disguised as fiction (False R>F), we give the wiki a definitive checklist. This will drastically reduce the vagueness of the current standards and prevent the exact stonewalling issue that Udl mentioned.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

I see, I see.

I merely worry about the use of "flowery language" and the like being used as a cudgel.

Do you know a word that might be able to replace it?

I feel it could resolve people being potentially confused if we put a bit extra next to it. The Reality-Fiction transcendence page is decently large by itself so having the relevant parts already there next to it I believe would be useful for readers and for keeping things user friendly.

So, like a bullet point of examples of real R > F examples versus false ones?

 

[Thanganimator]

So what now?